Johnson_BoardGameDesign

=Eye Love Literature= Stacey Johnson: stjohnso1@yahoo.com

Instructional Objective
The purpose of this game is to encourage student discussion about literature. In doing so, the game is intended to encourage students to draw creative connections between the literature they read and the world around them. As they do so, they will be challenged to examine and discuss a work of literature from various vantage points, which are represented by different colored "eyes." Additionally, the game is meant to reinforce student understanding of common literary terms. Addresses the following CA standards for English Language Arts:

//Literary Response and Analysis//
 * Analysis of interactions between characters, and of character traits
 * Recognize and understand the significance of various literary devices
 * Interpret and evaluate the impact of ambiguities, subtleties, and ironies in text

//Speaking Applications - Deliver oral r////esponses to Literature//
 * Advance a judgment demonstrating a comprehensive grasp of significant ideas in literary works or passages
 * Support viewpoints with references to text

Most importantly, the purpose of this game is to encourage lively, creative conversations about literature among students in peer groups.

Learners & Context of Use
The game is designed for use in the High School English classroom. It is intended to adapt to multiple ability levels, ranging from struggling readers to pre-AP level students. The game may be used with any short story or novel that the students have read together. The only criteria is that the story/ novel be fiction, and that all players in the game have read it. The game would work especially well with literature circles, wherein groups of students read and discuss a common book. The literature circle format is also complementary because students in literature circles already have some practice preparing for, and engaging in, literary discussions. In most models of literature circles, students typically prepare for weekly meetings by reading a selected section of the novel, and preparing notes, often in the form of reflective journal entries, which may focus on: interesting or confusing passages, character observations, compelling imagery, or reflections on themes in the novel. Students who do not participate in literature circles will benefit from doing some similar sorts of reflections prior to playing the game. Additionally, while the game is intended to encourage and support the development of students' abilities to engage in small group discussions, it is important for a teacher to explicitly discuss and model best practices for small group discussions prior to playing the game. For more information about literature circles, including materials for encouraging reflective note-taking and successful group discussion, please visit this [|site].

Competing Products
What's out there that covers the same content as this game? Well, I had a difficult time finding comparable models for my vision, so I broadened my search, from "literature games" to games that involved "story" "storytelling", "books", and "conversation." My findings helped me to clarify my vision for a game that promotes lively literary discussion among students.

[|Play By the Book] Designed for elementary school children, this is the closest model I could find for what I am envisioning. In order to get to the "end" of the board, players are challenged to discuss their book in various ways. All questions are general, so the game can be used with any book or story. My game is similar in approach and purpose; the main difference is that I am designing my game for high school students. Also, I prefer a circular model, where the goal is not to get to the end (because this is too often the purpose of reading), but to contribute to a circle of discussion. Players in my game will win by "giving away" their views, instead of racing for the end.

[|Bible Books] A Trivial-Pursuit style game wherein players are asked about facts in various books of the Bible. This approach is similar to many of the homemade games that English teachers design (or have their students design) following a novel. The purpose of these games is almost exclusively focused on recalling "facts" or details from the novels, with very little emphasis placed on discussion and higher-level thinking such as drawing connections, role-play, analysis, and interpretation. The purpose of my game is to move away from a "What happened?" model of literary discussion, and into a more comprehensive model, that recognizes literature (and the discussion of it) as living art forms, open to creative interpretation, and best appreciated in lively conversation.

[|The Story Game] Players have to share personal stories from their lives. The purpose of the game is to get people to share stories that they otherwise wouldn't share, promoting fun, conversation, and interpersonal connections among groups. This game has nothing to do with literature, but I came across it in my search for games that were designed to inspire storytelling, conversation, and interaction among players. I like the idea of a game whose primary purpose is to encourage discussion and community. I'd like to apply it to the classroom, promoting academic discussion and literary community.

**Object of the Game**
Be the first team to give away all "eyes". Each player reveals a full set of eye pieces at the start of the game, one of each "color" eye. Each eye piece represents a different way of looking at literature, and is matched by a corresponding challenge card. When a player successfully demonstrates, in their conversation or role play, their ability to look at the story or book from a perspective that corresponds to the way of seeing on a particular eye card, they get rid of the "eye" piece that corresponds to that card. Eye categories (and corresponding areas of focus) include:
 * Reporter (What happened and why does it matter?)
 * Professor (How does the author use literary elements, and to what purpose?)
 * Psychologist (Analyze character traits, character motivations, and interactions between characters)
 * Philosopher (Discussion of themes in the story)
 * You (Making personal connections between the text and your own life or understanding of the world)

Each player receives his/her own stack of cards and chips at the start of the game. Throughout the game, players have the option to trade or replace their given challenge cards with others, sometimes at a risk.

Content Analysis

 * ~ Content Type ||~ Content Elements ||~ Game Elements ||
 * ===**Facts**=== || * Plot of the story || * "Reporter" cards require players to discuss aspects of plot ||
 * ===**Concepts**=== || * Character traits
 * Literary elements (mood, theme,symbol,conflict,irony, imagery, foreshadowing, flashback, diction) || * "Psychologist" cards feature questions about character
 * "Professor" cards correspond to questions about literary elements ||
 * ===**Principles**=== || * Supporting observations with evidence from text.
 * Identifying larger ideas in literary works.
 * Engaging in authentic discussions about literature.
 * Making connections between literature and life experience.
 * Expressing ideas orally, using academic language.
 * Analyzing an author's purpose for employing literary techniques and devices. || * "Philosopher" cards ask players to analyze theme
 * Judge monitors how well ideas are supported by textual evidence. ||
 * ===**Procedures**=== || * How to discuss a key passage in a story/ novel.
 * How to support observations about character with evidence from text. || * Completion of most challenges requires successful participation in an "eye to eye" conversation with another player. ||
 * ===**Processes**=== || * How to discuss literature among peers in an academic setting. || * Most challenges involve discussion. in order for a player to successfully give away eye pieces, player must successfully engage in an eye to eye discussion with another player. ||
 * ===**Probabilities**=== || * Creative interpretation of an aspect of the story. || * Wild cards: may involve "wild" creative challenges, chances to trade cards with other players, or gain or loss of eye pieces. ||
 * ===**Context**=== || * Literature circle in which all contribute to discussion. || * Players "give" different viewpoints to peers in order to rid themselves of eye pieces. ||
 * ===**Vantage Points**=== || Readers consider text from multiple angles:
 * What happens and why does it matter?
 * How does the author use literary devices to create meaning?
 * How do the characters interact, and why?
 * What is the larger meaning of the text?
 * How do aspects of the story relate to my own life and experience? || Players must complete an analysis/ discussion task from each perspective:
 * Reporter
 * Professor
 * Psychologist
 * Philosopher
 * Self ||

Game Materials

 * 1 game board
 * 1 die (6 sided)
 * 8 game pieces
 * 20 eye pieces - chips of each color:
 * Stack of cards for each color (explain)
 * Stack of "Wild Cards"

Time Required
This game should take about 5 minutes to set up, with 5-10 additional minutes allotted for explanation the first time playing the game. Play could easily extend over several periods, without disrupting the flow of the game. Also, abbreviated ("blink of an eye") versions can be played, wherein players begin with fewer eye pieces. When played in a classroom, teachers have the option to decide to focus on particular lenses when students are in the beginning chapters of a book (reporter, professor and self, for example), and more "wide angle" lenses (such as philosopher and professor) at later meetings, when students have completed all or most of a novel. Doing so requires no special modifications other than limiting the number of eyepieces and corresponding cards that players begin with. All players will play as if they have already given away the "missing" pieces/cards. So, for classes with 45 minute periods, the abbreviated versions of the game may be comfortably completed within a single period. Since playtime may vary class to class and group to group, a teacher may modify accordingly.

This board game design lends itself well to online adaptations. An online version of this game might well be used on a long-term basis, among telecollaborative classroom communities. I will continue to mull over this as I develop the "hard-copy" board game.

The Rules

 * How to Play "Eye Love Literature"** **- the Basics**:

1. Have all players sit in a circle around the board.

2. Place stacks of cards in the corresponding places on the board.

2. Each player gets 1 game piece (to move around board), as well as:
 * 5 eyepieces, one of each color
 * 5 cards, one of each color.

3. Players reach their allotted challenge cards, and begin to think of responses. (Players will have the option to "trade-in" challenge cards throughout the game).

3. Select one player to be the judge for the first round.

4. The person to the right of the judge goes first.

5. First player rolls dice. Move clockwise around the board the # of spaces that is shown on the dice.

6. Read the question from your card that corresponds to the color of the space you have landed on.

7. Next, select a player to go “eye to eye” with. To do this, roll the die again. Count off, starting at your right, and skipping the judge and yourself, the number on the dice. The person you land on will be the person you go eye to eye with.

8. Going eye to eye with a player means you have a chance to give away the eye piece for the color you have landed on. Once you have determined who will go "eye to eye" with you, that player must read aloud from their challenge card that corresponds to the color you have landed on.

9. Now you can choose which challenge question to use: yours or the player's that you are going "eye to eye" with. Whichever one you choose, this will be the question that both of you must address.

10. Engage in "eye to eye conversation" with the other player. First, you address the question. Then, the other player addresses the question. See "Rules for Eye to Eye Conversations" below.

11. If the conversation is successful according to the rules below, the judge declares, "Eye see," at the conclusion of the conversation. When this happens, both players get to give away their eye pieces (by placing them in the circle on the board that corresponds with their color), and the player who was chosen for the "eye to eye" conversation gets to roll the die.

12. If the conversation is not successful according to the rules below, the judge declares, "Eye don't see it," at the conclusion of the conversation. Neither player gets to give away their eye pieces, and the player to the right of the previous dice roller gets their turn to roll the dice (begin again at step 5).

13. When a player has given away all of their eye pieces, they proceed to the central eye for the final challenge. The first player to successfully complete the final challenge wins.

14. Play continues until all players have successfully completed the final challenge.


 * Rules for "Eye to Eye" conversations:**
 * The person who rolled the die is the person who gets to choose which challenge question to address (their own or the "Eye to Eye" player's). Once selected, both players must address the question
 * Conversations may vary in length depending on the question, but both players must contribute to the conversation Each must contribute at least 1 new idea or point.
 * In order for an idea, or point, to count, it must be supported with evidence/ details: from the text and/or from the players own observations/ experience.
 * Players must introduce supporting evidence with the phrase, “for example..”
 * If one player is stuck, the other may help them by asking leading questions.
 * When the conversation ends, the judge must determine if all criteria are met. If they are, thenthe judge says "Eye see." If not, the judge says, "Eye don't see it."

If a player lands on a color that they have already given away, they must draw a wild card. When a wild card is drawn, all players may compete in the challenge. For a wild card challenge, the judge draws and reads the card aloud. First player to call out “I see!” has the option to answer. If they answer correctly, it becomes their turn to roll the dice. If the judge finds their answer insufficient, judge may announce, try again, at which point, another player may call out “I see” and try to win the wild card challenge. If no other players call out, then another wild card is drawn and read by the judge.
 * Additional Rules:**

First player to reach the central eye and complete the central challenge wins. Play continues until all players reach central eye and complete the final challenge.

Motivational Issues
In designing this game, I attempted to achieve a balance between two motivators that are sometimes contradictory: competition and cooperation. Players advance around the board individually, essentially competing against one another; however, the terms of their advancement demand cooperation. To succeed, a player must engage in a successful conversation with another player; an individual monologue will not suffice.

I have also attempted to balance the elements of challenge and contro l. This is always difficult, and especially so when I am designing for the wide range of reading abilities that are typical of my English classes. I have attempted to address this obstacle in the design of my questions. By making them open-ended enough to allow for a range of responses, thereby allowing struggling readers a chance to be successful while still providing room for advanced readers to shine. Embedded within this design is my awareness that the desire to create is a strong enough motivator to encourage advanced readers to express their unique observations, which may be much more complex than those of their less-advanced peers, even when a more simple response would "do." I was heavily influenced by Jesse Schell's observations about the desire to create meaning being a key motivator for players and avid readers alike.

Design Process
The design of this game began with a simple wish: to create a game that I could use in my 9th grade English classes, that would complement the instructional objectives of the course. The primary objectives I had in mind were: analyzing literature, understanding literary elements, and, most importantly, cultivating the habit of making observations about literature, and supporting these observations with detail. In addition to eyond these requisite "standards-based" objectives, my primary motivation as an English teacher who loves engaging in creative interpretation of literature.

Initially, I felt rather ill-prepared for the task of creating a literature game, or any game at all, for that matter. This is because I don't play many board games or video games myself. My favorite thing to do in my spare time is read. I love great literature, and Id have to say that I'd settle for mediocre literature over a great game any day.

At least, on a conscious level. But subconsciously, I guess I play more often than I have ever realized. Reading Schell's the Art of Game Design helped me to understand that my love of literature contains within it an intrinsic love of play.

For those who love literature, reading is essentially a complex game. Readers who love reading do so because they connect with characters and follow (see Schell on interactive stories) the character through a text. Readers are not generally aware of the nature of this play; much of it is happening beneath the surface, and would be described simply as "joy" of reading. But where does that joy come from? It comes from connecting with characters, which can be done as the reader asks questions such as "how is this character like me? How are they different from me? How does this character make their way in the world/ How do they handle challenges? What can I learn from this character? What about the character's iner life, and struggle? How does it relate to my own? What is this character's relationhip to the larger world (and how can it help me to understand mine?). How is this character beautiful and how is this character flawed? (How am I beautiful/ powerful, and how am I flawed?)

For lovers of reading, these questions are second-nature. Many of my students are not lovers of reading. Stories are tangential and beside the point; hey have not learned to connect them to their lives. Essentiallly, they have not learned to "see" a story with the dynamic, multifaceted lenses that make it worthwhile.

My intentions with this game are to teach and reinforce this kind of play, that which makes reading literature a rich and rewarding experience. In order to appreciate the richness and potential for a story to foster self-expression, a deepened understanding of self, and an appreciation for beauty, and an illumination of life's central questions. comes from viewing literature through multiple lenses. One must analyze the plot, understand the conflict, and understand the central action, of course. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. One must develop empathy with a character; one must extend one's observations about the character and the world of the book to one's understanding of one's own life, and in so doing, reading becomes an a profoundly creative act: the act of making meaning. Additionally, a reader will learn to appreciate the aesthetics of literature: making observations about the style and quality of the writing, and noticing how an author uses certain tools and techniques to build and enhance a story. I wanted to build a game that would encourage this sort of play. To do so, I realized, I would have to make the qualities of reading that made it enjoyable as play, which were almost completely implicit and below-ground, into well-defined explicit components of the game.

I began by researching existant literature-based games. My findings were decidedly dismal. Typing in any combination of "game" and "literature" led me most often to teacher-made instructions for how to create board games on novels that have been completed in class. A few links took me to teacher-made board games for specific novels (Lord of the Flies seems to inspire many of these). But the educational objective (if you can call it that) of most of these games seems to be to test students' abilities to remember plot details from the text, a-la Trivial Pursuit-style format. None encouraged the kind of discussion or creative thinking that are central to appreciation of great literature.

So, I set out to develop a discussion-based game. In my efforts to promoting literary discussion, I have, for the past year or so, been using literature circles in my classroom. In brief, lit. circles are groups of 4-5 students rading the same novel, who meet weekly for peer discussion. These groups would be ideal settings for my discussion-based board game.

My plan was to design a game that could be used with any story or novel. Questions would be specific to aspects of literature, without being story-specific. I was especially interested in posing questions that encourage students to draw creative connections between themselves and the text.

Here are some of the most difficult questions I faced during the design process, and my corresponding thoughts as I considered each:
 * **If I want players of different skill levels to play together, how can I make the game interesting and fun for everyone?** Part of addressing this was designing open-ended questions that would encourage a player to respond in a way that naturally complemented his or he level of ability, comprehension, depth, and creativity. A larger part of this lay in the design of the questions themselves. I needed to make them fun and engaging, the kind that spark genuine conversation, so that the students, whatever their abilities may be, would be encouraged to respond authentically. If I made my questions too "teacherly", then weaker students may feel intimidated, while more advanced students would "dumb-down" their answers to accommodate the limited perspectives of peers.
 * **How can I encourage players to encourage one another in their responses, without using teams?** I had considered teams, but did away with this idea when I considered that, in some literature circles, there may be as few as three students in a group.
 * **How can I regulate the quality of answers?** This, undoubtedly, was my biggest challenge. I aimed to design a game that encouraged creative responses, and that necessitated the accommodation of a wide range of answers to each question. My aim was to avoid trivial-pursuit style questions, with prescribed answers. Even if I had wanted to, I couldn't have included these, as the game is designed to be played with any novel, not a specific novel. Grappling with this challenge made me understand why I had been able to find any literature games //other than// the trivial pursuit variety. I considered using rubrics, but these are cumbersome and a bit too “schoolish” - I didn’t want the game to feel like an assignment; I wanted it to be fun and engaging. So, there could be no prescribed answers; no rubric. What to do? Could the teacher monitor the quality of answers? But no, it wouldn't do to have the teacher act as arbiter. First, this puts constraints on the game - which should be able to be played by students, without the teacher (Hey, I can dream, can't I?). Secondly, it wouldn’t be practical. If the game were played in literature circles, among student groups of 4-6, there may be 5-10 games going on in any given classroom. I considered having students be the judges. However, it seemed odd to have one person in a group “sit out” a game in order to act as judge.

As I was struggling with this issue, I came across a description of the game //Apples to Apples//, wherein players take turn acting as judge. While in the judge role, a player is neutral for a round. I liked this very much, and this concept seemed almost a perfect solution to my conundrum. Except that, how could I do this and still preserve teams? Teams seem essential here, not only because teaming makes it more fun, but also because - when I picture the students in my own classroom, many of whom are barely literate - there are many students who simply need the assistance of another player in order to complete questions and challenges. First I wondered, could teams be fluid, and change with each round as the person in the judges seat changes? This seemed lame, and it seemed to ask players to buy in to an artifice that was a bit too flimsy. I mean, you lose the fun of competition, and the bonding with teammates, when you don’t have set teams.

Could this be solved by keeping the play individual, but making it a requirement that some exchange must take place between players, so that the success of one may have a positive impact on the success of others? What would be the incentive to help a player out, if the player is not actually your teammate?For example, if my goal is to give away my cards, what if, instead of an individual give away, the requirement is more of an exchange? I must have an exchange with another player. In order for either of us to earn the right to give away our cards, both of us must successfully complete the challenge.

Thought-provoking questions may require some thinking ahead, or planning time. Students in literature circles do some of this on a weekly basis, and generally come to each meeting prepared with notes and reflections on the assigned reading, including selected passages of interest. However, this does not mean they will be prepared for all questions on the spot. Furthermore, I do not want lit circle preparation to be necessary in order to play. So, I modified the card drawing method in two ways to accommodate some preparation time, and also some flexibility in questions. First, I decided to have players draw cards at the beginning of the game. This would give all players a chance to review their hands ahead of time. Players would also be allowed to, in essence, “trade” questions at each challenge, when they go eye to eye with another player. When players go eye to eye, each has the option to respond to either of the players’ challenge questions.

The design of this game is still in-process. When I return to school in January (following maternity leave), I plan to conduct several rounds of play-tests throughout the semester. Additionally, I am continuing to build an extensive bank of questions for each lens category. A large question bank is essential for making the game one that can be played over and over again throughout the year. I plan to develop these, as well as a professional looking design for the game, and hope to publish within the coming months.